[ntp:questions] Re: ntpd, boot time, and hot plugging

Tom Smith smith at cag.lkg.hp.com
Thu Feb 3 15:00:21 UTC 2005


David L. Mills wrote:
> Kenneth,
> 
> This is the single most persistent issue in the engineering design of 
> NTP. There must be tradeoffs between security, robustenss, accuracy and 
> initial delay. In the current design compromise, a server is acceptable 
> only after three/four rounds of messages and the ensemble time is 
> acceptable with at least one of possibly several acceptable servers. 
> With IBURST mode, takes takes 6-8 seconds.
> 
> For better robustness use "tos minclock N", where the at least N 
> (default 1) servers must be acceptable to set the clock. Tonight I put 
> in a "tos maxdist M", where M is the distance threshold below which the 
> server is acceptable. Set "tos maxdist 16" and the first sample received 
> from any server will set the clock likety-split. Of course, essentially 
> all the mitigation algorithms using multiple-sample redundancy and 
> multiple-server diversity are systematically defeated. You might as well 
> use SNTP.

David,

I know the subject has been workstations, but let's talk for a moment
about this religion as it concerns servers - like the ones that run
telephone companies, stock exchanges, and banks inside heavily
defended firewalls. It's the same issue, it's just that the stakes
are higher. The issue is how quickly can you get these
systems back up at boot. 15-30 seconds is a long time to wait.
Too long.

We're not talking about one-shot sampling for maintaining the time,
so comparisons to SNTP are not helpful. We're talking about speed of
acquistion of an initial "good enough" time, keeping in mind that the
perfect is often the enemy of the good.

You might argue that if boot time is critical, just let the server come
up with whatever random time it comes up with and let ntpd fix
it up later. Give it a "-g" so it doesn't complain. A lot of folks
have tried this in the past inadvertently (and continue to do so)
by neglecting to put ntpdate into their boot sequence ahead of ntpd.
I've fixed a lot of systems whose drift files were pinned
at 500 ppm and whose systems ran perpetually fast or slow as
a result. We've also spent a lot of money fruitlessly replacing
motherboards on those systems. Turning a large initial offset over
to ntpd is decidedly NOT a Good Idea.

The reason why so many of your constituency keep bringing this
subject up is that they know that ntpd needs a good (not perfect)
estimate of the time before it starts and that critical systems
can't wait for perfection to get that estimate.

-Tom
________________________________________________________________________
Tom Smith                       smith at alum.mit.edu,smith at cag.lkg.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Company                          Tel: +1 (603) 884-6329
110 Spit Brook Road ZKO1-3/H42                   FAX: +1 (603) 884-6484
Nashua, New Hampshire 03062-2698, USA           Mobile: +1 978 397 3411




More information about the questions mailing list